113
improved resilience, as seen in the experience of the COMDEKS program. At the
same time, use of the indicators can help communities identify gaps in their understanding of system complexity and dynamics, and thereby identify opportunities to
leverage synergies, as seen in the Cuban case and others.
A unique aspect of this particular indicators approach is that its inclusion of temporal trends and timelines has helped communities’ understanding of historical
resource-use and management practices and consumption effects. Likewise, the
inclusion of community-based mapping exercises into resilience assessment workshops has identified resource-use patterns and drivers of change that affect the current situation as well as positive or negative effects of potential interventions. The
resulting more comprehensive understanding of socio-ecological interactions in the
landscape or seascape over time has promoted greater appreciation for and commitment to revitalization of traditional and local knowledge and practices, and consequently empowerment of local communities, for example in the cases from the
“GEF-Satoyama Project.” This empowerment extended to groups within the landscape or seascape by incorporating perspectives, knowledge systems, and worldviews of vulnerable and under-served segments of the community, encouraging
planning by internal stakeholders with high transformational potential, as in the
case from Japan and those from Bioversity International.
Possibly the most prominent benefit found in these experiences using the indicators is their value as a convening tool, bringing together multiple stakeholders in a
landscape or seascape. Using the toolkit has helped with stakeholder engagement by
bringing together groups that did not previously communicate much in the landscapes and seascapes presented here, allowing them to work together toward building shared understanding and goals between local communities, governments, and
other stakeholders to promote participatory management. This includes a more
comprehensive understanding of trade-offs between different priorities of different
actors and actions, and the types of conflicts that can arise, allowing more informed
efforts to overcome undesirable outcomes from governance and management
actions, as in the case from Colombia.
Overall, this indicators approach has been found to be a good tool for the purposes above, and others including its value in contributing to scientific research, as
seen in the case from Tanzania, and to encourage conservation, as in the Japan case,
by helping local people to understand the links between ecosystem services and
their own livelihoods. That said, some points for further consideration when using
the indicators were identified in these cases. For example, some found that the indicators may be more effective if they are adapted for local contexts by adding or
modifying some indicators as appropriate, or combined with other tools as in the
Tanzanian case. This is one result of the indicators’ use of a community-based
approach, which, as indicated above, allows for and also requires a variety of ecological, socioeconomic, and other factors to be considered in an integrated approach
to assess resilience at the community level (Antwi et al. 2014).
Most importantly, users stressed that, due to their subjective nature and widely
varying socio-ecological circumstances, these indicators cannot be used for comparison of different landscapes and seascapes, as they rely on community members’
6 Lessons Learned from Application of the “Indicators of Resilience…
improved resilience, as seen in the experience of the COMDEKS program. At the
same time, use of the indicators can help communities identify gaps in their understanding of system complexity and dynamics, and thereby identify opportunities to
leverage synergies, as seen in the Cuban case and others.
A unique aspect of this particular indicators approach is that its inclusion of temporal trends and timelines has helped communities’ understanding of historical
resource-use and management practices and consumption effects. Likewise, the
inclusion of community-based mapping exercises into resilience assessment workshops has identified resource-use patterns and drivers of change that affect the current situation as well as positive or negative effects of potential interventions. The
resulting more comprehensive understanding of socio-ecological interactions in the
landscape or seascape over time has promoted greater appreciation for and commitment to revitalization of traditional and local knowledge and practices, and consequently empowerment of local communities, for example in the cases from the
“GEF-Satoyama Project.” This empowerment extended to groups within the landscape or seascape by incorporating perspectives, knowledge systems, and worldviews of vulnerable and under-served segments of the community, encouraging
planning by internal stakeholders with high transformational potential, as in the
case from Japan and those from Bioversity International.
Possibly the most prominent benefit found in these experiences using the indicators is their value as a convening tool, bringing together multiple stakeholders in a
landscape or seascape. Using the toolkit has helped with stakeholder engagement by
bringing together groups that did not previously communicate much in the landscapes and seascapes presented here, allowing them to work together toward building shared understanding and goals between local communities, governments, and
other stakeholders to promote participatory management. This includes a more
comprehensive understanding of trade-offs between different priorities of different
actors and actions, and the types of conflicts that can arise, allowing more informed
efforts to overcome undesirable outcomes from governance and management
actions, as in the case from Colombia.
Overall, this indicators approach has been found to be a good tool for the purposes above, and others including its value in contributing to scientific research, as
seen in the case from Tanzania, and to encourage conservation, as in the Japan case,
by helping local people to understand the links between ecosystem services and
their own livelihoods. That said, some points for further consideration when using
the indicators were identified in these cases. For example, some found that the indicators may be more effective if they are adapted for local contexts by adding or
modifying some indicators as appropriate, or combined with other tools as in the
Tanzanian case. This is one result of the indicators’ use of a community-based
approach, which, as indicated above, allows for and also requires a variety of ecological, socioeconomic, and other factors to be considered in an integrated approach
to assess resilience at the community level (Antwi et al. 2014).
Most importantly, users stressed that, due to their subjective nature and widely
varying socio-ecological circumstances, these indicators cannot be used for comparison of different landscapes and seascapes, as they rely on community members’
6 Lessons Learned from Application of the “Indicators of Resilience…